Irish Property Market chat II - *read mod note post #1 before posting*

timmyntc wrote: »

Average FTB in Dublin who gets a mortgage in Dublin has a joint income of 92k. *
So approx 350k is their upper ceiling of affordability. 50% of all buyers in Dublin are after houses priced 350k and below.
How many houses in Clontarf, Malahide, Glasnevin could you find for 350k and below? Not many.

*source here from CBI: https://www.centralbank.ie/docs/default-source/publications/household-credit-market-report/household-credit-market-report-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=5

Where do you come up with the 50% number? you already have said min wage shouldn't be included, so that's a decent %. Those on social welfare need to be excluded. Was 50% plucked out of the sky?

You can also apply for exemptions when buying a house - which some FTB get.

timmyntc wrote: »

Its from the report - the average income of all FTB mortgage applicants was 92k - i.e. all the people applying for a mortgage to buy a home in Dublin.

This doesnt count people who dont work or anything else - you are totally misinterpreting it. 50% of all FTB couples in Dublin earn 92k or below.

Your also coming up wiht figure of 350k, while ignore the figure of 385k in the report as the average property value. why did you go to 350k?

Graham wrote: »

Why would you not compare with other EU capitals?

because it doesnt suit his argument.

timmyntc wrote: »

Its from the report - the average income of all FTB mortgage applicants was 92k - i.e. all the people applying for a mortgage to buy a home in Dublin.

This doesnt count people who dont work or anything else - you are totally misinterpreting it. 50% of all FTB couples in Dublin earn 92k or below.

That 92k figure is for actual mortgages issued to FTBs. It excludes the people who didn't get approval, got approval but didn't proceed (e.g. if they couldn't find something in budget), didn't apply yet because they know they won't get enough incl. deposit.

So it doesn't represent the combined income of all wannabe FTBs. Just the ones who actually completed their sale. It's an important distinction when you're picking and choosing which figures to quote.

javaboy wrote: »

That 92k figure is for actual mortgages issued to FTBs. It excludes the people who didn't get approval, got approval but didn't proceed (e.g. if they couldn't find something in budget), didn't apply yet because they know they won't get enough incl. deposit.

So it doesn't represent the combined income of all wannabe FTBs. Just the ones who actually completed their sale. It's an important distinction when you're picking and choosing which figures to quote.

Also, it's an average and not a median, so you can't say for sure that 50% have fewer. It may be close to that but that's not what averages measure. The median could be either higher or lower.

Graham wrote: »

Why would you not compare with other EU capitals?

Yes it might be comparable with some Eastern block capital, like Vilnius maybe?
Main point was, you need to compare it to markets, locations which are closer to Dublin. Which have similar infrastructures, resources, labour force, laws etc

In addition how can you do binary comparison between relatively small, un developed city to cosmopolitans like New York, Paris, London, Melbourne.

Cyrus wrote: »

because it doesnt suit his argument.

You need relax and enjoy some sun shine sweetheart.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

You are comparing Ireland to Australia to show how house prices aren't expensive here. Are you serious? Australia is known for having expensive house prices. That's like saying an €8 pint in Temple Bar isn't expensive because they cost more in Oslo.

He brought up population density as an argument as to why the prices should be cheaper, thinking Dublin is low density. I proved that assumption wrong so time to move the goal posts.

You seriously want me to pick New Zealand, which is even worse, or Canada? I did include Malmo, Sweden, as an alternative.

How is 'Australia is known for expensive prices' any different from him saying 'Dublin prices are extortionate?' If Dublin prices are 'extortionate' - what does that make places that are actually more expensive, like Malmo, Australia, New Zealand? Dublin is on par with Edinburgh - does that make Edinburgh extortionate or is perhaps that actually Dublin is not really as out of step with world city prices as some people like to think?

Dublin houses may well be expensive in terms of disposable incomes, because Irish taxpayers are so comprehensively shagged by Revenue; all to pay for what must be one of the most expensive public sectors on the planet.

It's not the house prices that are the problem it's the lack of affordability, which I believe is down to the level of tax burden. When the government is buying up a significant fraction of residential housing and giving gold-plated top tier houses away as 'social-housing', because the second most expensive public sector in the EU couldn't manage to to do what many individuals can manage when they self build a house, no wonder FTBers are up against it.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

It's more complex than that. Even when people compare it to mass housings of the 30's they forget it was pre electrified. In the 30' houses were basically 4 walks a few windows a front and back door and a roof. There was no on suites in fact there was often no I side toilet if it was it was downstairs...

...Houses are much more complex buildings now. Houses could have a couple grand spend on telecoms provision. Regulation require a downstairs toilet, there will also be a main bathroom and an on-site. Add in a fitted Kitchen not just with presses but with appliances as well, maybe similar in the utility not to forget the granite worktop.

Houses are indeed more complex but we have highly efficient ways of producing such items now. By some measures, the cost of light, for example, has been falling for thousands of years:

https://www.statista.com/chart/10567/the-cost-of-light-through-the-ages/

One thing that’s hard to make a hundred times more of is land and we’re not managing the land we have effectively. This isn’t England with multiple other Dublins close to our capital, and we shouldn’t even be looking to other English-speaking countries like the UK, Canada or Oz for solutions, given that they have also made a complete hames of this problem in their largest cities. Why does Germany manage to provide rental properties at a better, i.e. lower, cost in Berlin and Munich? Smaller European countries should be the peers we judge ourselves against, like Austria and its capital city.

https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&city1=Dublin&country2=Austria&city2=Vienna

timmyntc wrote: »

I never said they should be able to live right beside their family - but that they should be able to live in the same city. I hope for your sake you lived near a train line.



From Birmingham, but I dont know if I'd call it "commuter" - no doubt you do get some people who move further afield so they can buy their house on their own plot of land, we get the same in this country with McMansions out in the middle of nowhere. But I'd be very surprised if the majority of teachers live outside London. Anecdotally, I know plenty inside but none outside London.



You cannot have 100% home ownership, no. Nowhere in the world has that. Minimum wage is the bottom of affordability, you would be renting at that price range. If they want to buy a house they'll have to save like crazy for decades, or try get better paying jobs.
The situation we are in now however, is that even median income households would struggle to buy. Thats almost 50% of population below that income line who may not be able to buy a house, which is well below EU average home ownership.

The likes of Meath Kildare Wicklow would be considered Dublin if you are comparing it to London. And the majority that commute don’t live in McMansion’s outside London....the difference is infrastructure In London you can easily commute compared to Dublin (yes I know the trains are crammed full and most staff get a loan to pay for their quarterly ticket as they are so expensive). Maybe try living in London or its surroundings before comparing to Dublin because from the sounds of it you have no idea what reality is like there. And in case you think I am talking about low paid jobs i’m not i’m Talking about people that work in the square mile on good money.

Dav010 wrote: »

Thinking that the State, or society should facilitate children living close to parents in the most expensive market in the country is blinkered. Considering how many people are directly, and indirectly, employed as a result of construction, it would be naive to ignore how intertwined and codependent society is on economical effects of the construction sector.

It depends on whether you think society is the state, or that the state is a vehicle for the interests by which one cohort constantly profit.

The long term employment norm for a construction sector is between 7-8%, yet in Ireland we fail to regulate housing to the extent that it's constant boom and bust development with cyclical reliance on construction for votes.

Timing belt wrote: »

The likes of Meath Kildare Wicklow would be considered Dublin if you are comparing it to London.

This is kind of just going back over of why they aren't really comparable. London's city area is 13 times larger than Dublin's, but the city population is also 16 times greater, so you would expect the area to be larger.

A pretty notable difference is also that London has a city population of 8.9m, and an urban population of 9.8m, so 90% of the urban population lives in the actual city. In Dublin we have a city population of just 550k but an urban population of about 1.2m, so only 46% of the urban population actually live in the city. This is why population density comparisons can be a bit misleading. Dublin's population density at 4,811 people/sqkm sounds comparable to others on paper, but most people who live in "Dublin" don't live in this area. The urban population density of Dublin is only 3689 people/sqkm.

Folks,

where can i see the annual average property price change for dun laoghaire rathdown 2016-17,17-18,18-19,19-20

Its amazing how quick this comes on the agenda as the Shinners are at the gates


Local property tax surcharge for vacant properties under consideration as system set to be overhauled

https://www.thejournal.ie/local-property-tax-vacant-properties-5454981-Jun2021/


In another letter to the IT, Fine Gael cllr John Kennedy wants this on the agenda


Vacant homes tax

The prospect of using fiscal policy to reduce vacancy is enticing given the estimated potential reservoir of approximately 245,000 (already built) vacant homes as per Census 2016.

The previous impetus surrounding a vacant homes tax in the 2016-17 period was effectively stalled by the publication of the Indecon Report on such taxation, which questioned its potential effectiveness.

However, the report did not take enough account of the example of France where “Taxing Vacant Dwellings: Can Fiscal Policy Reduce Vacancy?”, authored by Mariona Segu (Université Paris-Sud) and Benjamin Vignolles (Paris School of Economics), demonstrated the effectiveness of such taxation to reduce vacancy rates.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/vacant-homes-tax-1.4579239

DataDude wrote: »

Just to add onto this, in case you're not familiar with navigating the CSO website. If you hit "PxStat Tables" there's much more granular info which you can throw out into excel. Table "HPM04" will give you your mean and median prices by month and by Eircode.

The raw data by Eircode can be a bit lumpy given relatively low levels of transactions per month and large outliers mess with it so you might need to do some smoothing yourself.

we are looking at our LPT liability which we were exempt from until this year :pac: so the community is looking at how best to coordinate amongst us.

My suggestion is that we take the developer prices from Jan 17 and then inflate and deflate as per the annual CSO price changes for houses in DLR.

Comes out ok actually